Just the other day I read where in Utah, a person must take a “free” online “Antler-Gathering Ethics Course.” Think about this for a moment before you laugh at it or, more than likely, laugh at me.

To the totalitarian leaders in state government, carrying out the wishes of the fascist regimes in Washington, the plebs are incapable of doing anything without government say so and control over it. This is ALWAYS followed by the issuance of a tax in order that the fascists can collect their filthy money in order to continue their filthy ways. Unfortunately, but very few see it nor are they interested in Truth, most hunters and outdoor sportsmen, smile while being accosted and pillaged hiding behind the stupid excuse that what government is telling them to do, “is for the good of the Motherland.” If that doesn’t seem to make sense to you, then simply state such laws and restrictions are reasonable.

Most hunters, but not all, if you are capable of understanding, speak that they support the right of a person to keep and bear arms. However, the overwhelming majority will cower and say that “reasonable” restrictions to this right are “good for the Motherland,” failing miserably to understand that in so doing a right is turned into a privilege. A privilege is easily taken away. We fall into our grave and evidently love it.

We don’t even understand the word reasonable. The use of the word reasonable is value-weighted. In other words, it is defined by whoever has enough authority to levy “reasonable” based upon their own perceptions of what the term should mean. In this world of progressive leftism, rooted firmly in immorality and decadent lifestyles, what does reasonable mean today? What will it mean tomorrow? If you can’t see this point, you are a victim of your own progressivism and don’t know it. I’m sorry!

In Utah is a clear example of such. Government has decided that before you can take a walk in the woods to find some antlers that fall off animals, such as deer, elk, and moose, they must tell you how to do it. My guess is the overwhelming majority will think this is a good thing and will protect these animals in the late winter when most sheds drop.

Half of these that support an “ethics course” to shed hunt often openly state that gun control laws only affect the law-abiding citizen. I suppose that to these masters of illusionary ignorance, a law-abiding citizen is one that is smart enough to know what is illegal and respectful enough to abide by those laws. Therefore, all law-abiding gun owners are those that_________________. (I’ll let you kid yourself and fill in the blank.) While you’re at it, fill in this blank. All ________________ who took the mandatory ethics course are law-abiding slaves.

Always bear in mind that you, being a law-abiding citizen (wink-wink), don’t know how to “ethically” pick up shed antlers and you need someone to tell you how. If you agree with this then you must be one who also needs government to tell you how to “ethically” own a gun and how to “ethically” use it. The same must hold true for fishing, archery, boating, hiking, biking, walking, talking, sleeping, eating, and the proper and ethical way to use an outhouse.

Most understand that disturbing an animal that is stressed by the harshness of winter does the animal no good. If it is really that detrimental to the health of the animals, then wouldn’t it make sense to outlaw shed hunting? Probably, but that doesn’t fit well into the narrative of the totalitarians and the fascists who demand that we do everything they want us to.

Don’t deny it! You will shake your head at me and ask yourself what drugs I’m on because I don’t care at all for government and everything they do and stand for. While at present, a “free” online course on the ethics of antler shed hunting sounds so…so…so…, well, how do I put it? Leftist progressive? Grounded in environmentalism? Totalitarian? Fascist? What? Oh, you say it’s a great idea? And will it still be a great idea when for anyone who gives a tinker’s damn, learns nothing has changed by forcing the proletariats to comply with the government and then will come the tax? I predict the majority will be eager to pay “each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

If this is the growing trend, and it certainly appears that everyone is “all aboard” this freight train to hell, line up and let’s make it the same for everybody. No need to pick on just shed hunters…is there?

Before anyone can “hike,” – any good totalitarian, leftist, idealogue can clearly define what is a “hike” – they must complete a course on the ethics of walking while not disturbing flora and fauna; carry in and carry out; how walking the same path causes erosion; how to properly go to the bathroom while in the woods (yes, there is something unethical about taking a dump on somebody’s private land and leaving a giant stack of toilet paper.) But let’s not disturb the animals…never the animals. Kill humans, leave the honorable animals alone.

This list and more can apply to any outdoor activity. Forcing the law-abiding (wink -wink) citizen-serfs to pass a test written by government totalitarian/fascists, will change nothing. But if they have their plans down pat, they can collect a tax and get their law enforcement heroes to arrest and fine anyone caught not following the manifesto. Be careful when one of those heroes approaches you, your hiking stick might just look like a weapon.

Maine has recently passed a law prohibiting the “feeding” of deer from August 15th to December 15. This Act was supported by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), which should be no surprise as we know MDIFW has tried for years to ban the act of feeding deer at anytime.

However, the real issue, I think, is the prevention of “baiting” deer for the purpose of improving your chances of taking a deer during the archery, rifle or muzzleloader seasons.

In V. Paul Reynolds article this week, he says that in this debate about baiting deer, ethics should be part of the discussion. But ethics of any kind, can be a very sticky wicket.

Who decides what is ethical? For years I have written about ethics as it may apply to hunting and still believe, within the written laws, ethics is a personal perspective.

I support the baiting of bear for harvest purposes because there is a need to limit or reduce the growth of the black bear populations in Maine. It is my understanding that the MDIFW mostly sees the bear baiting issue much the same way. In short, it is a necessary management tool, even if it perceived by some as ugly. Without this tool, the alternative may be even uglier.

Because most of Maine has few deer and historically the state has never really been overrun with deer, the need to call for the implementation of baiting as a management tool to reduce numbers, has never been necessary and is definitely not needed today.

But this really has little to do with ethics. I’m not a bear hunter but I can clearly say that if I was, I would NOT bait – unless, of course, I was very, very hungry. I am a deer hunter and I would NOT bait deer for much the same reasons. I don’t necessarily object to those who choose to bait their game, where legal, but I personally would not care to implement baiting regardless of how, if any, doing so effects the odds of bagging game.

I have often read those who define ethics as, “what you do when nobody’s watching.” While this may be partially true, personal ethics goes beyond whether or not someone chooses to stay within the bounds of regulations. Short of legitimate regulations to guide the scientific management of game animals, it should NEVER be left up to Government to attempt legislating ethics. When you consider the corrupt and unethical existence of Government at all levels, surely one cannot seriously ask such an entity to make the decisions as to what is ethical and not ethical.

We have been brainwashed and manipulated into a totalitarian form of existence in which one of the greatest problems in today’s society is that “useful idiots,” i.e. the totalitarian sheep, believe it is their right and their duty of conquest to tell others how to live.

To what degree ethics should be discussed in this debate about baiting deer, would be a crap shoot and more than likely would only serve to create more problems. Within the laws of man, whether or not we agree with them, my personal ethics should remain as such…personal. If I strongly believe in my own ethical practices, perhaps, and I mean perhaps, I might share that philosophy with friends…if they care to know. Besides that, I mind my own business and expect that same respect in return.

Here is a link to the story of how Maine’s record Boone and Crockett buck was shot over a pile of “bait” – culled potatoes.

Can the entire episode of accusations by a newspaper and victims against the Maine Warden Service (MWS) get any more weird and childish? Today we learn that the undercover warden in the whole charade is seeking an investigation into the actions of Maine’s representative John Martin, claiming Martin used his political power to fabricate the original news story and to influence a judge in the case.

Rep. Martin suggested that the undercover warden, “… the best he could do is probably shut up.” I tend to agree, especially since it appears that the MWS Colonel is still AWOL and the FOIA documents have not been turned over to the newspaper.

The MWS has investigated itself and found they did nothing wrong when it appears the DID NOTHING!

One has to wonder if the MWS is advising their agent. If so, I’m thinking this is very poor advice, at least at this time. They should get their house in order first, that is if they have done nothing wrong. If there is strong evidence of political influencing by a representative, then by all means go for it.

These events have a way of resulting in a great big loss for all parties involved. In the meantime, the people laugh at these people and fail to develop any kind of respect for them.

*Editor’s Note* – The below opinion piece is a classic example of ignorance as it pertains to wildlife management. That ignorance is driven by emotional nonsense of “ethics,” and “values.”

The author claims that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) manages wildlife from the perspective of “the end justifies the means.” He bases this incomplete thought process on what appears to be a belief that the MDIFW manages game animals strictly for the purpose of harvest. Harvest is only one part of the North American Wildlife Management Model. This is reflected in the agency’s efforts in controlling and limiting harvest numbers in all game species when necessary. It is dishonest to lead people to believe MDIFW’s call for harvest of game is to appease the hunters because they buy licenses. I know of no hunters or trappers who would promote any fish and game agency to recklessly allow unrestricted harvest simply to pay the bills.

The author’s revelation of how he enjoys “hearing” coyotes and that hunting and trapping of coyotes is strictly for the purpose of protecting deer for hunters, is ignorant and dishonest.

It would appear that the author espouses to a “natural balance” – a false theory that if man would simply butt out of wildlife management all things would be in perfect balance. That simply is not true. I guarantee that if that practice was employed, it wouldn’t be long before people would realize the results are extremely undesirable.

Too many coyotes destroy far more than deer and they also carry and spread many diseases – many of them harmful and some deadly to humans.

The third complaint this author has is that managing wildlife makes wildlife less wild. I would concur that idea carries some merit depending upon the level to which such wildlife/habitat manipulation is taking place. However, if anyone is going to get on that wagon, then they must also stay on that wagon to argue against the introduction or reintroduction of all wildlife, in all locations, for all reasons.

If, for example, stocking Atlantic salmon fry in attempts to restore a robust salmon population, makes one believe the fish are no longer wild but farmed, then the Federal Government has no business introducing/reintroducing wolves or any other species or subspecies. It also should not be allowed to protect one species at the detriment of others, including the species of man.

Realism often gets in the way of idealism. While the author in question here certainly has the right to his opinions about wildlife management, that right doesn’t carry over in order to force another’s lifestyle and supposed “ethics” onto the others.

I see much of wildlife management within the MDIFW as a win/win trade-off. The author seems to take issue with the idea that hunters harvest game. I believe it’s a small price to pay for an idealist in order that the overwhelming costs of being good stewards of our wildlife, is taken up by those willing to cough up the money in exchange for some meat in the freezer or some extra cash to help pay the bills.

MDIFW is not infallible. As a matter of fact, I could present a real good argument that much of what MDIFW does is more in line with the desires of this opinion-piece author.

Bears and coyotes do destroy a lot of deer over the course of time and is partly responsible for a deer herd that is sparse and struggling to recover in some areas. If MDIFW’s only concern was providing deer for hunters, they would have killed a lot more bear and coyotes than is the case.

Game species (deer) trump non-game species (coyotes) because the sale of licenses is the agency’s primary source of income. If the agency were funded out of the general fund and license fees were not dedicated revenues, the agency would obviously need to be responsive to a broader constituency than just consumptive users. For economists, this is a phenomenon we see in the public sector termed regulatory capture. An interest group (consumptive wildlife users in this case) employs some technique to “captur

*Editor’s Note* – I have stated before that, BY CHOICE, I prefer deer hunting in the fashion I grew up with, save one exception. I grew up with a gun (sometimes), open sights, and most times with one or two bullets – it was all we could afford. I learned the forest and to recognize deer signs and stalking methods. The one exception is that today I employ a scope for two reasons: 1). With antler restrictions, it aids in determining how large a set of antlers are, and 2). My eyesight isn’t what it used to be.

While the author of the article that I’ve linked to below doesn’t come right out and ask that these “modern” and “high-tech” instruments and equipment be banned, he has little good to say about them. And that’s just fine. I don’t either, but I don’t begrudge someone who does CHOOSE to use them……UNLESS….

The main question that might be needed asking here is, due to the onset of all this “high-tech” equipment, has the number of deer harvested increased because of it? And to go along with that, has it stolen “opportunity” away from other hunters?

I can’t link you to any data that shows one way or the other. I can tell you that game managers, who set the dates and duration of deer hunting seasons, do so based upon estimations of the total number of deer they want harvested for management purposes. If the high-tech equipment is causing more deer to be taken in shorter periods of time, then, unless your state has a problem with a large, rapidly expanding deer herd, the season will be shortened in order to limit the number of deer harvested.

In discussing the pros and cons of “high-tech” we could spend days attempting to decide what is good or bad for the sport, the economy, recruitment of new hunters (are younger “techie” kids more easily attracted to hunting because of the technology?) public safety, etc.

But, then the writer gets into a bit of ethics and that’s when things get kind of gray. Ethics, sometimes defined as what you do when nobody is looking, is more than that. Aside from staying within the bounds of the law, what a hunter does or does not do, is really a personal choice….isn’t it? And who am I, or who are you, to tell someone how they ought to hunt?

As I said, I like to hunt the “old fashioned” way and I will spend time telling others about how I enjoy it and why. If I touch something in them, they might find the interest as well. On the flip side, how does that same person feel if I tried to get a law passed condemning their choice of hunting equipment and methods, all within the law, of hunting? As I have already stated, that unless they are cutting into my hunting opportunities, how they really doesn’t have much bearing on me and how I hunt.

Here’s an example that I can show you that I’m positive the author did not think about when he wrote it. It is what I have quoted from the article just below. The author approves of TU, DU, PF, IWL and MDHA and their promotion of habitat conservation and “art and ethics of hunting.”

That is the author’s choice, and he should have that choice. I respect that choice. Personally, I find much of what these groups stand for contrary to my way of thinking, but that’s my choice and should remain that way.

Just as this writer believes that these groups’ “ethics” are to his liking, he should continue to have that choice, just as much as the hunter has his/her choice of how to hunt, within the laws that govern it.

Groups such as Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, the Izaak Walton League and the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association conscientiously promote habitat conservation along with the art and ethics of hunting. Kudos to them.

I recently submitted an article for my monthly column in the Bethel Citizen newspaper about bear hunting and ethics. It should be published in the next few weeks there. The basis of the article was an attempt to understand why other seem empowered or compelled to dictate another person’s moral and ethical beliefs within the existing laws.

A Letter to the Editor found in the Bangor Daily News today from 70-year-old Hank Hoskins says: “I am in my 70s and have hunted big game animals since my grade school days. The pursuits required efforts beyond sitting and waiting over baits; the activities were hunts, not “shoots.” My hunting days are about over and my ethical code would never allow me to attempt to shoot a bear over bait. That said, however, I would never try to dissuade another person from doing so if such shooting was a legal activity.”

A glimpse into the rarity of raw honesty and what might be a solid understanding of individual rights and liberties.

Confucius once said, “Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.” And yet again George Bernard Shaw once said, “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.” What’s even worse is being ignorant and having the confidence to show it. Mark Twain said that you only need two things in life to be a success; “ignorance and confidence.” That is why for many who will read anything that I write will claim I am the one who is ignorant and their truth is the truth that will lead them to successes beyond their wildest dreams….with confidence. Wildest, yes, but never anything that they dreamed of.

I don’t believe it takes a political expert, whatever the hell that is, to come to the conclusion that the majority of people who would sell their souls to Satan for animal welfare, are members of the same group that like to call themselves liberal and progressive. And thus would support and defend the welfare state; “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Let’s gander for a moment into animal welfare as it may pertain to black bears. In reality, it matters not the species of plant or animal. Environmentalists preach the “natural” and “balanced” way of doing things. These leftist, animal welfare, non thinkers harp to anyone who will listen that if man would just butt out of the equation of ecosystem (whatever that is) health and well-being, all would be Kumbaya.

Even after those who fabricated the theory of “natural balance” have since withdrew that claim, based of course on “best available science” (snickering here), the animal welfare activist and promoter of “let nature take its course and everything will be alright,” will cling confidently to their old-found supposition in order to show their own ignorance, confidently, but only to those intelligent enough to know the difference. For the majority, it has no meaning and that’s why it continues.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and their grand followers of confident ignoramuses, are proudly showing the world that they want the citizens of Maine, and other states, to stop treating bears inhumanely – hunters shoot them and eat them. GASP! The same flock of parrots preach ethics. I’m reminded of the words of Jesus (that would be the real, one and only, Son of God, the Creator of all things) when He said to the mass of confident, ignoramuses, eager to throw stones at and kill a woman because she was a prostitute, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”(John 8:7) My thoughts here are that Jesus didn’t think the stone-throwing sinners were exercising good ethics.

Obviously, and it is a shame I have to explain this, I have my doubts that anyone mixed up with HSUS, is much interested in “stoning” a bear hunter, but then again……

Somewhere lost in this progressive paradigm of animal protection to extremes, people have determined to make humans second class citizens. Animals come first. And yet, out of one corner of their mouths they confidently believe themselves to be compassionate humans toward other humans by offering somebody’s money (tax dollars), not their own, to go to support humans who say they can’t take care of themselves. Can’t take care of themselves? Later.

A reader sent me the following statement found on the Mainers For Fair Bear Hunting Facebook page. By the way there is nothing to do with Mainers in this group of Totalitarians as the entire group is funded by out-of-state interests and the HSUS.

The update pertains to a gathering of confident, ignorant, hypocrites to bring attention to the onset of Maine’s bear hunting season. In the update it says, “For 30 days, bears are trained to visit these sites for free food, seemingly with no strings attached.” There are confident outcries among the masses. I’m sure the gatherers will be chanting, “No more welfare for bears!”

Perhaps I should take that statement and just change three words. I’ll delete “30 days” and replace it with “years” and change “bears” to “people.” The statement would read, “For years, people are trained to visit these sites for free food, seemingly with no strings attached.”

On the one hand, God created man and gave him the brains and ability to take care of himself, i.e. work, grow and find food, shelter, etc. On the other hand, God created the beasts of field in order that man could have dominion over those beast, to care for and perpetuate growth for people to eat and use all the resources the animals can offer.

The confident cloud dwellers of the HSUS and other environmentalist movement groups demand that animals should be left alone, in their “natural” state (although their own ignorance don’t know what that means). Doing so will bring justice to the animal kingdom.

However, a man, a human, should have more ability to take care of himself than a damned bear and yet HSUS and others believe bears should be left to their own devices, without man’s interference (of course only when that interference involves hunting, fishing and trapping). Where is the outcry from those confident protestors toward those who spend years training others to “visit these sites for free food (health care, education, money and shelter), seemingly with no strings attached.”? What the hell is “natural” about that?

The Bangor Daily News has an article about the debate over the upcoming referendum to effectively end bear hunting in Maine. The article discusses science versus ethics. In addition there is a poll question that mimics the one that will appear on the ballot in November: “Do you want to ban the use of bait, dogs or traps in bear hunting except to protect property, public safety, or for research?”

And those who aim to remove that part of Maine’s culture do so for the purpose of destroying that culture by imposing their own totalitarian beliefs onto others. Perhaps it is best worded by Douglas Lawrence of Wilton, Maine in an editorial published in the Bangor Daily News(scroll down just a bit):

It is natural for people from away, with different cultures, to believe that their cultures are better and should replace the old ways of Maine people. When modern colonizers come with money, they can buy the land, dictate government policies and impose their new culture. Just as Europeans replaced 20,000 years of native culture here, so too do these new colonizers remake Maine culture.

Maine already suffers from an eroded culture. When a people whose traditions tell them to make a living as farmers, fishermen, loggers, hunters, trappers, or to make valuable things such as shoes or ships, are unable to live that life, they lose their direction, hope and self-worth. Anger, hopelessness, alcoholism, drug use and family abuse are all part of this downward spiral of a culture.

As Maine voters stare down the double barrel of a referendum, a fake one at that, shrouded behind all sorts of fake claims, mostly lies, about bears, bear hunting, humane treatment of animals and hunting ethics, they will be asked to make a decision as to whether or not they want to strip the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife of their tools necessary for the management of a healthy bear population. More importantly they will decide whether to destroy Maine culture and replace it with the perverted teachings of anti human, animal rights beliefs.

Most voters don’t understand bear hunting, never done it, and can only be persuaded by the propaganda and talking points spewed by both sides of the issue.

It has always amazed me at the degree of ignorance displayed by many who migrate to Maine from points south, many to escape the city life. Their claims are that they NEED to get away from the hustle and bustle, the noise, the regulations, the limitations and the overall “nastiness” of urban dwelling. They head for Maine, are here for a short time and then begin to work hard at making it exactly the way they left it behind them.

We all have our rights to opinions and beliefs. We think we have a right, brainwashed to believe in democracy as a means of protecting any rights, to force our own beliefs onto others. It is one of the very dark sides of democracy. The old saying is that democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what will be for lunch.

Minds have been twisted and demented to a point where perhaps a majority of people believe that animals have rights, feelings and the power to think and reason. We see this in everything in media today. Just last evening I was watching a program on television about an elephant and it was quite sad to listen to the perverse narration and talking points throughout the entire program. It was completely based on the humanization and rationalization of human nature projected onto and into an elephant’s life. What have we become?

Animals are an incredible thing but they are not human and do not have any human traits and yet we, as misled non thinkers, seem to think they are.

We have a responsibility to care for the resources God gave us – including the animals of the earth. Over the past near 100 years, here in the United States, we have done a remarkable job of caring for our wild animals, to a point now that we have too many of them in certain places. We have devised ways to fund the conservation of wild animals and created and protected habitat for them to live mostly healthy lives and yet these totalitarians want to change that. They lie to tell others it doesn’t work and that animals have rights and feelings, so blinded by this insanity that they are seemingly more willing to have too many animals starve to death or suffer from disease than to humanely die by the quick death of a hunter’s bullet. This tells us the effort is not about the welfare of animals but the destruction of culture and all that is good and traditional.

As part of the hunting culture, something that has been a part of the landscape since the first settlers who came to this land, for all of us there once was the personal choice, within the laws that govern wild game harvest, to decide our own ethic when it comes to the methods we choose to harvest game. Contrary to what some are being taught, wild animals, a resource for the American people, are crafty creatures and as such, since the beginning of time, man has had to devise ways to make the job of putting food on the table easier. In addition, wildlife managers, through implementation of the North American Model of Wildlife Management, regulate hunting and hunting harvest and the tools that can be used in that pursuit for the purpose of maintaining a healthy population of game.

Ethics in the context of hunting then becomes a sticky subject. Remaining within the laws that govern the sport, we must all decide, on our own I wish, how we would like to hunt and not have some other do-gooder, who thinks he knows what’s better for me than himself, tell me what is an ethical way to hunt.

Readers should ALWAYS be reminded that letters to the editor of newspapers are only opinions no matter how inaccurate a writers claims might be. It is quite astounding that some people can present seemingly continuous claims about Maine bear hunting while providing absolutely nothing of value to substantiate those claims. As a reader you are left with total disregard for what is contained in the opinion piece. It should be also noted that providing links to other’s opinions does not make for credible information to back claims.

This happened recently in the Bangor Daily News when a woman, passing herself off as someone who, “hunted as hard as any man for 30 years when I was younger,” states that people should support the upcoming bear hunting referendum to ban hunting bears with bait, hounds and trapping with snares.

The author says that Maine has a “time-honored principle of fair chase” and that game should have a “reasonable” chance to escape a hunter. I wonder if the 30-years of hunting “as hard as any man” can remember some of those “time-honored” principles when bears were slaughtered due to unregulated hunting? That the bear population had diminished to near unsustainable levels due to that “time-honored” tradition of fair chase? That heritage of “fair chase” might be more myth than reality.

The problem with discussing ethics in hunting is complex and too much of what is considered sportsmanlike and ethical is left to the individual beliefs and governed by laws crafted by fish and game authorities to provide a degree of public safety along with what becomes necessary to control populations of game species. The author makes the claim the Maine doesn’t “bait” for other species like moose and deer because “it’s not fair chase.” Maine has a very limited deer and moose population and so that while providing opportunities for all hunters to fill their freezers there must be limits on tools used in the “fair chase” to also limit harvest. If Maine was overrun with deer, it can be expected that laws would be changed to find ways to increase the harvest of deer and moose. If it then is an individual’s choice and belief system of what is and is not “fair chase” and decides to opt out of baiting, then more power to the individual. Perhaps to resort back to hunting with an atlatl would be ethical and fair chase enough. Then again there are those extremists who think any form of hunting at all is unethical. Who gets to decide what you believe? Legislating ethics and fair chase is something that should never happen.

When anyone inserts the word “reasonable” as a means of describing fair chase, then any definition is completely lost, as it should be. So, then, what is fair chase? Is hunting with a GPS fair chase? Using a rifle scope? Scent locked clothing? Buck lures and doe scents? Calling by mouth, with a hand-held device or electronic call? Every individual can draw their own line of ethics. Claiming bear hunting by hounds or baiting for hunting or trapping is not fair chase obviously in not to this writer but to many others, within the law, it is fair chase and they should have that right. I shouldn’t dictate to this writer what she should maintain for fair chase ethics and I expect the same in return.

Massing words together in a rant about other people’s perceptions of fair chase and ethics involving hunting does nothing to convince anyone that ending the current means of available hunting and trapping methods for black bears is a worthy goal.